Basavaraj and Others vs Sannarange Gowda

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 418/2008 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, being aggrieved by the order dated 24th February 2014 rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of the written statement, filed this writ petition.

The respondent herein filed the suit seeking for declaration declaring that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for a direction to the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession and also sought for arrears of damages of Rs. 30,000/- and for other reliefs. The contesting defendants filed written statement on 02-01-2009 denying the relief sought for in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties went for trial. At the fag end of the trial, the defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of the written statement to incorporate paragraph 11A after paragraph 11, which reads as under:

"It is submitted that suit property which was granted to Siddegowda, the previous Vendor of the plaintiff belongs to Sy. No. 2 of Manjenahalli Kaval. The defendants are residing in Attavara (Sy. No. 94) village. The suit property is different from this property which is in possession of the defendants in the above case. Hence, the plaintiff has no right, title, possession of property which was acquired by the defendants." The said application was objected by the plaintiff contending that at this length of time and at the fag end of the trial, defendants cannot seek for amendment of the written statement and it violates the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Further, the said amendment is not required for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Whereas the suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration of title and for possession and sought for dismissal of the application.

The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail found that the defendants have filed written statement on 2-1-2009. After more than 4-1/2 years and after conclusion of the trial, an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed i.e. on 10-12-2013. No reasons have been assigned for amendment of the written statement at this belated stage. Further, the prayer sought to be amended is not required for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and it will give scope to the change in the nature of suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendants.

Sri. M.N. Sunil Kumar, advocate appearing on behalf of Sri. M.N. Madhusudhan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. The pleadings of the parties can be amended at any stage of the proceedings. The defendants want to clarify some of the defense taken in the written statement and it will not change the cause of action or the nature of the suit. Hence, sought for allowing the writ petition.

On the other hand, Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court and contended that the proposed amendment is not required for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. After conclusion of the trial, the application has been filed. No due diligence has been shown for inordinate delay in filing the application. Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in JT Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others and Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, in the case of M/s. Ravajeetu Builders and Developers v. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, after examining Order VI Rule 17 of CPC laid down some principles while dealing with the applications for amendment. Hence, the case of the petitioners will not fall under the ambit and scope of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that in a suit for declaration and possession, the defendants filed written statement. At the fag end of the trial, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement contending that the suit property which was granted to Siddegowda, who is the previous Vendor of the plaintiff belonged to Sy. No. 2 of Manjenahalli Kaval is different from the suit schedule property and this amendment is required for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. I have perused the proposed amendment. This amendment is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The dispute is with regard to declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing No. 4, measuring East to West 50 Feet and North to South 30 feet with Mangalore Tiles, the house situated at Attavara Grama Panchayat of Hosur Village. The proposed amendment has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in various judgments has laid down a law that the approach of the Court for amendment of the written statement is different from that of the plaint. A liberal approach should be taken for the amendment of the written statement.

In the instant case, the proposed amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the relief sought is in respect of some other property. Hence, at this fag end of the trial, the amendment of the written statement cannot be granted. The Trial Court after examining the matter in detail rejected the application. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner has not made out prima facie ground to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Since the suit is of the year 2008, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.